W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xsl-fo@w3.org > July 2001

Re: Follow-up on region precedence

From: Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom@accesscable.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 18:53:24 -0300
Message-ID: <001501c108c1$96afd2a0$721a8a18@accesscable.net>
To: "Anders Berglund" <alrb@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-xsl-fo@w3.org>
Thank you. I eventually noticed the region name differences also, and then
it really made sense that 7.24.15 was way out of date, and not to be trusted
at all.

Regards,
Arved Sandstrom

----- Original Message -----
From: "Anders Berglund" <alrb@us.ibm.com>
To: "Arved Sandstrom" <Arved_37@chebucto.ns.ca>
Cc: <www-xsl-fo@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: Follow-up on region precedence


>
> The text in 7.24.15 is in error (even the names of the FOs it lists as
> applying to no longer exist...) and will be corrected. The property only
> applies to the region-before and region-after.
>
> Anders
>
> Arved Sandstrom <Arved_37@chebucto.ns.ca>@w3.org on 07/01/2001 09:23:38 PM
>
> Sent by:  www-xsl-fo-request@w3.org
>
>
> To:   www-xsl-fo@w3.org
> cc:
> Subject:  Follow-up on region precedence
>
>
>
> Hi, all
>
> I have been staring at the XSL spec on screen a bit too much, and the
> little
> words are blurring togther. :-) In any case, when I read the section on
> regions (6.4.14-17) a few days ago, I managed to convince myself that
> region-start and region-end also have a "precedence", based on section
> 7.24.15, which states that all 4 outer regions _do_ have a "precedence"
> property.
>
> I have since discussed this with others, and I am quite certain that
> 7.24.15
> is completely in error. Once it is dismissed, and only 6.4.14-17 are taken
> into account, then a much more consistent picture emerges. FOP happens to
> follow what is presumably the correct interpretation, and I believe other
> implementations do, too. I guess at the time of writing code everybody
> ignored the property description. :-) I wrote a chunk of that code myself,
> but I can't remember... Just as well.
>
> It would be useful to have a pronouncement on the property description,
> just
> so we know for sure that it's out to lunch. In any case, please ignore my
> diagram in the previous email - it is based on 7.24.15.
>
> Regards,
> Arved Sandstrom
>
> Fairly Senior Software Type
> e-plicity (http://www.e-plicity.com)
> Wireless * B2B * J2EE * XML --- Halifax, Nova Scotia
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 9 July 2001 17:55:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 3 October 2007 16:06:08 GMT